>> hello, welcome, coming up, we are going to ponder the question, what does a limited strike mean? today they have been debating the intervention in syria in the u.k. parliament. the specter of iraq is weighing on the minds of decision makers. after the initial outrage over last week's use of chemical weapons, leaders in washington

and paris are playing it cautious. syrian intervention? not so fast. we will hear what the world's newspapers have been saying in our media watch segment. in it -- newsroom let's say hello to press. >> the rhetoric on syria, going down a notch, the solution, they say, the goal for a military response. david cameron makes his legal and moral case in the strong opposition against the united nations been unthinkable. one of the most wanted people in india has been arrested. arrested in connection with a series of deadly bombings. >> we start with syria and the united nations council reconvening, coming back from an

immediate response. on the ground chemical experts have been at work in damascus and have been called back. washington, london, and paris continued to mull their options. they have promised the country would defend itself against serious aggression. >> on the ground and in the suburbs, recent footage showed a team of weapons inspectors. the un secretary general is keeping a close eye on the events. >> it appears that diplomacy should be given a chance. peace, given the chance. these opinions should be resolved by peaceful means of dialogue. >> they urged the international

community to wait before deciding on a course of action that could lead to a military strike. they look into allegations on each side. footage of loaded on line showed many ceding to the exit signs of poisoning. they have been collecting blood, urine, and hair samples, and to the extent that chemical weapons may have been employed. >> thank you for joining us, lucy. >> the syrian response is that

they have used chemical weapons against civilians. today they are saying that syria would fund itself against aggression. not completely sure what he meant by that, that they would try to literally fireback, such as at the aircraft that committed airstrikes. the syrian army was not thought to be power form of to take on aircraft in that sense, but that to defend itself he means to retaliate in a way that means punitive action. syria is not powerful enough to take on israel, but the other possibility is that they could use one of their spies, a hezbollah official said yesterday that they would take pseriously any u.s. attack on

syria and that they would do what was appropriate. once again, not clear what was eant -- what was meant. but that they could be used by the regime to send a message back to the u.s. there is great anxiety over the conflict that could further inflame the region. >> the u.k. parliament meanwhile debating syria, prime minister david cameron saying that britain had a moral responsibility to respond the attack. >> the question before the house today is how to respond to one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century, slaughtering innocent men, women, and children in syria. it is not about taking sides, it

is not about invading, it is not about regime change or even working more closely with the opposition, it is about the large-scale use of chemical weapons and our response to a war crime, nothing else. >> meanwhile, the french president is meeting with the head of the syrian opposition coalition on thursday. he remained noncommittal on the option of using force. the latest comments from paris home from the prime -- the foreign minister. >> it is clear that we cannot go without a firm proportionate reaction to the attack. and it is clear that these crimes from the international community, described by the un secretary general as crimes

against humanity will not go unpunished. but we also need to continue our efforts to find a global political solutions to the crisis through our continued support of the opposition and through dialogue. >> barack obama said on wednesday that no decision has been made on intervention. congress has been briefed by intelligence officials. angela merkel called on moscow for a quick, unanimous reaction. they agreed that the conflict could only be solved by political means. they sent six typhoon fighter jets to a break -- to a base in cyprus. they said the planes would not take part in a military action.

russia has sent two ships to the eastern mediterranean to strengthen their naval presence there. in other world news, france has called an emergency council meeting after a surge of violence in the eastern democratic republic of congo after the death of a u.n. peacekeeper between rigid in clashes between rebels and in the city. they have blocked the bid behalf against sanctions -- blocked the bid for sanctions after territory vowed to defend itself in the violence against the united nations, declaring the shelling to have come from rural areas. the supreme court has rejected a challenge in presidential elections.

they expressed disappointment, declaring the party will not abide by the ruling. the indian government says that the leaders of the domestic terror group blamed for the series of deadly bombings has been arrested. we have the report. it has -- >> it has been described as a breakthrough in the most wanted man being detained against security forces. the militant group that claimed responsibility in indian cities, his arrest has been hailed as a major coup for security forces. >> his arrest on the border is a huge achievement.

because it was a big motivator and logistics' provider, he trained many others. >> the group was banned following a bakery bombing, an attack that appeared to target indians and foreigners. it was their first major attack since the 2008 mumbai bombings. they are still a relatively new threat for india, traditionally targeted by groups in pakistan. they're working harder than ever to combat terrorism on home soil. >> that is at fort -- it from the newsroom. >> thanks, chris.

hit them hard, that is what it says on "the economist." after a week of going through scenarios, a u.s. president qualified his intentions. haunted by the specter of iraq, the uk prime minister echoed that. ideally he said he would go down the u.n. route, but russia intent on vetoing resolutions. what shape with this limited strike action take? would it be too little? not so fast, they said.

welcome back to the debate. he commanded u.n. peacekeepers in lebanon and bosnia, welcome to debate. from moscow, the former vice chair of the russian parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. thank you for being with us. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. barack obama, david cameron, the french president, proceeding with what sounds like newfound caution. >> we must do everything to reach it with a cool solution. >> is this the same that we

heard at the beginning of the week? >> not exactly. in the speech he said that the position needed to be credible. that was the sentence that he made. i think it is a good picture where you frightened someone and you say to the other one, you must be able to discuss. that is probably why he made this declaration this morning. >> it is not a case of him knowing something that we did not know about an intervention in syria? >> i do not think so. a few days ago i think we were expecting the attack during the nine. now the british have taken another position. the u.s., as well, and the french this morning saying --

ok, we will not change the strike for the government. you need to discuss and be ready for the discussion. that is the aim of the current theater. >> wednesday, barack obama, ahead of that statement, expressing increased caution as he weighs his response. >> we are saying in a clear and decisive, but very limited way, a shot across the bowel, saying stop doing this. it can have a positive impact on national-security and may have a positive impact in the sense that chemical weapons are not abused again on innocent civilians. >> again. beginning of the week they talk about intervention forces. now he is talking about a shot across the bowel.

>> he has made it clear and it is not a secret. this president in particular does not want to go to war against syria. everything is forcing his hand. he is doing the best he can not to intervene. my concern is that he wants to go in a limited fashion. >> was the objective? >> let's stay on the objective of the administration.

also the perhaps normal international community. keeping it intact, preserving the regime and applying surgical strikes, the risk of escalation is tremendously high. keep them in place and teach the lesson not to use the same weapons in the future. it should go on. you cannot drag in incrementally. >> the surprise was talking

about the strike two days ago. we sent the same message years ago, kill as much as one of your people, we would say that your days are numbered. we have been talking for two years. at one moment needed acts to match the words. >> he was talking about threading a needle here. how do you go about this? >> my position was always the same.

from day one, the problem he has had is with all of these cities every day with his people, his army, they have this problem. there is a kind of support for the no air strike zone with local surgical strikes, something like that, that would be welcome. but the game is on the ground in syria. >> the battle is already lost, a point you have made before. we will get back to that in a minute. the first of at least two debates in the british house of commons, what is essential through suspicion? >> where is the evidence that the action by the international

community would cease the use of chemical weapons in syria? a country where they have accepted 100,000 dead, millions of refugees, and a continuing action destroying totally that country. where is the evidence that convinces him that the extra no world can prevent this? >> there is no 100% certainty about who is irresponsible, you have to make a judgment, and no certainty about what path of action might succeed or fail. i think we can be as certain as possible that when we have a regime that uses weapons on this many occasions and is responsible for this large scale attack, they will conclude that they can use these weapons again and again without impunity. >> the russians themselves say that chemical weapons were used,

there is just disagreement between them and the west about who use them and against whom. do you agree that he cannot wait for 100% certainty? >> all of these quotations came from the point that it was well established that the regime has used chemical weapons. they were in desperate need of finding a context for western support and strikes here. it has been established.

i know that in recent days, preceding the days of chemical weapons use, the army was holding negotiations with hundreds of larger and smaller groups of armed opposition fighters. practically ready to surrender under the condition of food amnesty, as had been done over other verdicts and places. that would mean a major defeat and a final turning point this is what the west could not tolerate, sitting the image of the united states being the boss of the union winning victories.

i strongly believe, and the facts tell that they use this in the underground stuff -- underground cellars kahane on the surface. we know that this particular district was all a network of underground passages under the control of that position. they reached the place and found the traces -- >> you are suggesting -- >> they were from -- >> people from the opposition that gas their own supporters? areas favorable to the opposition -- >> they are in need of that. it would be insane to ruin all

the victories after the results of that two-year strike for the west and their justification. i cannot believe that all, the simplest logic. the atrocities of the fanatics that took over when they started this peaceful demonstrations. the oldest sins of the regime 100 times, i have seen videos where their throats were cut. >> that is a point i want to give back to, the syrian extremists. i want to get some of the other panelists to react.

it is an important point about who benefits from the crime. obviously your supposition is not the same, but that was a question put to david cameron in the comments, who benefits from the crime? he already said he had a hard time about this and was uneasy about it. >> there is real logic there. in 2005 it did not seem like logic to anyone, but they did it. they said that it was done by the opposition. why would they celebrate this huge victory the same day? they knew that it was something very strong and, again, no one would say the word of that time.

to know that there is not an international strike, there is some vegetation. >> do you agree that it is hard to find the logic? >> yes and no. look, i watched this morning for a solid 30 minutes the debate in the british parliament. i have mixed feelings that are polar opposites. i was happy to see such a lively debate. one side on the opposition debated in the interest of the country, but i was angry and sad to see that most of the conversation was almost irrelevant. this has boiled down to the forensic evidence of who perpetrated the attack using chemical weapons when you have more than 100,000 people who

have died in the syrian conflicts and millions to have left their homes and now the conversation is about who used chemical weapons? it is almost like c. s. side damascus. this is ridiculous. -- csi damascus. this is ridiculous. >> so, the 100,000 killed, but the chemical weapons, in the international community, we are talking about has cetaceans. during the debate british lawmakers clearly haunted by the iraq war and those elusive weapons of mass destruction that never materialized. >> i wanted to listen to the man standing right here and believe everything that he told me. we are not here to debate those issues today, but one thing is indisputable, the wealth of public opinion was well and

truly poisoned by the iraq episode. >> the man standing right here? that was tony blair. who, by the way, in an earlier in the week opinion piece was unabashed in his call for intervention in syria, declaring the hand wringing having to stop. in early 2003, there was build up to the iraq war. you were at the un, a military attache at the united nations. does this bring back memories, this discussion? >> it brings back other memories. bosnia, 20 years ago. we always discussed, did not know who was guilty. remember the market 3, discussing who was guilty?

>> back when colin powell made that speech at the u.n., did you know then, as david cameron said today, that this would poison the well public opinion. >> nobody knows, really. apparently there were not weapons of mass destruction, but the problem was that to take the point, the judgment, without giving new evidence. the point is that you need to make a judgment, the prime minister said. >> when will we get those facts? another issue. stay with us. ♪

>> throughout the week we keep you up-to-date with sports news, the action, the results. join us for the sports around up, right here. >> the king of jordan has made a short trip. >> keep connected on social media, taking the first step, and tweak your week. break away from your television. find another dimension. become even more linked to the news. get a connected view of the world.

>> 10 years have passed, but like i -- like in the tiny southeast asian state, $1 per day. the country is pinning its hopes on oil reserves, but they have yet to become a reality. revisited, an exclusive report. >> because a new page of history gets written every day. because breaking news, way. information everywhere.

a different take on the news. ♪ >> before we resume, we're watching closely for you at the top of the hour, u.n. inspectors wear gas masks as they collect evidence in damascus, ahead of the bleeding -- and head of the un security council in new york, the meeting called by russia. the indian government said that the leader of a domestic terror group was blamed for a series of bombings and has been arrested.

among the other groups, barcelona against lawn. dan will have that in sports. we are wondering if they are proceeding with more caution than before. ramping up for intervention against syria after left the, and our guest is here to talk to us about it from washington, and here in the studio. welcome back to you both.

from moscow, the former vice chair of the russian parliament international affairs committee. welcome back to all four of you. just before the break we were talking about the specter of iraq in 2003 and the u.s.-led invasion there. something that has been on the line of james. how have you been? >> not bad. "the new york times" they came out strongly saying that more answers were needed. they said that there was no evidence showing the he was behind the chemical weapons assault, given the gross failure in iraq, where the bush administration went to war over nonexistent nuclear weapons, the standard of proof is

unquestionably higher. if you check out this editorial here, they said looking back they wished they had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims. i think they are particularly cautious now when it comes to issues where the evidence is perhaps not crystal clear in linking aside -- assad to chemical weapons. >> the other issue at the beginning of the show, "the economist," not linking. >> not all. i went back to find their editorial for the iraq war, they said that mr. who seemed -- mr. hussein needs to be removed before he gets his mom and they have not changed their standard. hit him hard is their standard. as far as the apparent use of chemical weapons, they say, that if an american missile hits it,

so be it, a different attitude from "the new york times." also interesting to look at, "the new york post." and the british press? this is a piece from "the spectator." david cameron there, looking pleased with his military toys, pointing out that bombs and missiles were bad, "winning more hearts and minds, they can build no democracies." certainly has become much more hawkish in power." and he overrode libyan concerns and is attempting to do so again and at some point he might have to learn a suez canal style lesson. >> often the military is more cautious than the politicians. >> maybe they will have to learn the hard way.

>> a few other british articles, this one is in "the times." a u.k. government source called edward miller band." -- called edward milliband, he is waiting for the u.n. inspection report. it is extraordinary that they would resort to exclusives. i find that pretty amazing. the editorial today in "l'emonde" could not be more critical about -- vladimir putin. they said the diplomacy bears a huge part of the responsibility over using a weapon of mass destruction.

a huge part of the responsibility. >> that is in "the new york times," suggesting his resignation. >> starring in the towel, thinking it will be intervention. -- throwing in the towel, thinking it will be an intervention. he has not spoken out publicly. is there quiet resignation in the halls of moscow? but >> i have no information regarding this dilemma. russia is regarding very well the islamic world. they became heavy long ago with

deep profound religious studies. better than anyone else we understand the implant that -- implications and consequences of this act. there will be counts on control matter how much control of the united states and british claim. the europe would be the first victory, because of the imperialists who long ago took over this badland, i have seen that someday they will spread out of lebanon, jordan, tunisia, egypt. the flood of this will radicalize the french community and the british muslim community. >> how will moscow reacted there are strikes? >> well, uhhhhh, mr. lavrov said

he would not fight with anyone. if there was the slimmest chance, no matter how, but for the sake of even such peace as we have now, compared to what we have had after. >> one final point from you, james? >> as is often the case of social media you can see the anti-bork campaign building.

it was used on french twitter. a lot of people feeding into the sentiment, voting no on a war in syria. >> you were talking about exhausting the diplomatic channels and proceeding with caution. proceeding with caution as part of the message of the piece that you call authored for foreign policy. in it you say that given the deaths of hundreds of civilians in the united states, the shelter in baghdad in a 91 was married by carter's who knew what not to hit in damascus this time around. we are talking about very be populated areas. they have already moved things

away from the main barriers. >> they are only targeted in the name. let's the forget that, it is still a push for a political settlement in the government and the rebels. what they are trying to do to advance that golda -- that goal, it was recently in syria, recently possible that they will launch air strikes against syria. they are trying to force coming to the negotiating table and the

rebels are again pushing for the collapse of the regime and the president has mentioned it. only a field would ignore the clock -- only a fool would ignore the collapse all want, but only a bigger fool would ignore the consequences. >> how does barack obama keep his promise with limited air strikes? >> look, the likely targets are control centers, military sites, regime buildings, strategic weapons and delivery systems. my point is, this is where i criticize policy, it is not

realistic to go for limited air strikes against syrian targets. they're close to civilian buildings. where innocent people work. it is not realistic. you might as well go in with a comprehensive plan. i do not think it is possible to do those at the same time. >> general, do you agree?

can you strike enough to bring both sides to the bargaining table? >> i think that if you destroy a part of their power and a different system, they will be at the same level as fighting on the ground as the opposition and at this stage, perhaps with a strike, it will go back to discussion, perhaps. as they said this morning, the opposition must be ready to discuss, also. and then they will gather around the table. >> which brings us back to the part about the tide? you were there in the middle of july. what gives you that impression? >> here you could see that

without hezbollah or the air force, on the ground the syrian army is weak and is not winning anything alone. with iranian advisers they cannot do anything anymore. that is finished. for what the general said, there is the old proverb -- what does not kill you, makes you stronger. strikes that are not really -- the can be too little, too late. they are very shy strikes. the mib much better for the assad propaganda. there will be some civilians killed because the regime has admitted it is very possible in

any strike. so, of course, they would get the cameras all over the world. it is very complicated, very touchy. and if we go, we have to go all the way, not have half. >> civilian casualties? [inaudible] >> what is that? >> i never said that there will not be civilian casualties. i said that it was unrealistic to expect such surgical attacks without casualties. there is no way you can wipe out the entire network with the weapon of choice, weapons fire from fighter jets or tomahawk cruise missiles from the sea or with bombers. there is no way to do that except with a comprehensive air campaign.

>> by the way, this thursday, the syrian president reportedly speaking according to state media, warning that if there is a strike, he will not sit idle. >> the threats of direct aggression against syria will only increase commitment to diplomatic principles and the independent will of the people. syria will defend itself in the face of any aggression. >> assad speaking there, you saw those images accompanying the delegation from yemen. that is what the retaliation will look like when they saw serious strategically located in the heart of the region.

lebanon, jordan, israel on the other side, when you look at that map you have to understand why they made the decision that western leaders had to make. >> we talk about this, looking at the map, it is even worse. maybe jordan is on the way? >> we are just getting a word from white house press spokesman saying what they are contemplating. the white house is saying that what they are contemplating will be a discreet and limited

reaction to the statement. >> it reflects what they protect, now, and the thinking proposed thing. if the purpose is to put this on the table, he many times declared it was ready, but who will negotiate the other side of the position, which exists on paper? the groups are not controlled by anyone, they are on drugs and seeking no democracy, trying to reload.

that is the second thought that they must think about. if they destroy that balance there exists nothing in paper, having no real power, no real control over the groups who came through. there are places. that was the program. who will control? it will be worse than now. >> the unintended consequences of a strike could have a power vacuum. just ask some of the kurdish refugees coming from across the syrian border into iraq over the past few weeks. >> perhaps with a loss of

pressure, they believe they have the right to forcibly marry a woman. we are getting it from all sides. life is difficult here. >> what is your reaction to what the refugee was saying? >> if there was any sort of reaction to support the revolution people and twist his hand, we would not be here today. we would not be discussing these horrors that people are talking about. but i really want to insist that putting this on people as foreign, they are tiny minorities.

putting it down as propaganda is a lie. i cannot accept anyone saying something like this without knowing what is happening on the ground. >> natalia? >> as the one who attended the event in the geneva session of the united nations human-rights council, with the ambassadors, they brought witnesses from the provincial places and for me it was important. there should not be in any case a connection to the government to be credible before the audience was convened. there was a shade over 3 million people representing muslim leaders, catholic leaders from their oppositional rep low, who

testified a lot of atrocities came from the army, these episodes were allegedly declared as a result of the army late. they were all saying that peace was still possible, if the west would not support. they all worried that time had passed and now it is all external and has nothing to do with the ideal of democracy, they are just killing. the army was winning more support than they had before. >> in light of what she is saying, -- >> i am not trying to say they are angels.

>> let me get a reaction here to what that effort -- refugee was saying, that they are sick of the free syrian army harassing them. >> it might be possible to have local isolated access. >> this is more than a local isolated incident. tens of thousands of people going to iraq. >> that is just one person. escaping the shelling. we have to be very careful about this. i wanted to say something important to natalia, 200,000 people have been arrested, detained, tortured, there are no cameras to see what is happening. the witnesses cannot go to geneva. that is what is going on in

those areas. >> two questions on time lines. right now the u.n. chemical weapons inspectors are in damascus. how fast will we hear from them. how does un time work? >> it is not fast, but i guess that they will pressure the secretary general to make his report, because that second date that is important, wednesday of next week in st. petersburg, my guess is that they will want to discuss the subject on monday. the report should be ready on monday to discuss with the council. >> you have preempted me here, general. that second clock that is ticking, the countdown in st. petersburg, russia, it is one week from today.

does that mean that we will have a conclusion and air strikes between now and then, or does it mean that this whole thing will blow over for the time being? >> it is a good question. it will certainly be awkward to have a meeting at the g-20 in russia preceded by u.s. air strikes in syria. i do not think that any air strikes will be launched before that meeting. on the job of the chemical weapons inspectors, there was use of chemical weapons. we go to the united nations security council. and then the chinese and the russians, they are back to square one. i think that no matter how used in this, there will not be a legal basis behind any intervention. the americans, british, and french might as well be on the same page. the united nations security

council has hit a dead end. >> thank you for joining us from washington. also thank you for joining us from moscow and here in the studio. thank you for being with us here. >> we are going to investigate the different positions on life. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> an exclusive report. >> the week in france.

join us for the latest news from france. every friday.